STAAR result
Math above similar-context averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 49%vs 42.2% avg · +6.8 pts
- Masters
- 26%vs 16.1% avg · +9.9 pts
Among 1,878 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
See the full measureTraditional public school campus
Sulphur Springs Elem
Hopkins County · Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 562 students
- Current score
- 74/1002025-26
- Change
- −15 ptssince 2021-22
- Score vs similar economic context
- −5.9 ptsvs 79.9 average · 1,998 rated schools serving a similar economic context
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate placement
- 1,434 of 1,998tied with 65 others
- Score vs region
- −7.5 ptsvs 81.5 average · 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant
- Region 08: Mt Pleasant placement
- 114 of 142tied with 6 others
- Score vs county
- −6.8 ptsvs 80.8 average · 15 rated schools in Hopkins County
- Hopkins County placement
- 13 of 15among reporting schools
- Score vs similar-size group
- −6.3 ptsvs 80.3 average · 4,744 similarly sized rated schools
- Similar size placement
- 3,429 of 4,744tied with 149 others
- Score vs state
- −7.3 ptsvs 81.3 average · 7,646 rated Texas schools
- Texas placement
- 5,844 of 7,646tied with 207 others
C74
At a glance
Under TEA’s current rules, the available rating history is moving down; under the rules in force back then it scored 89 in 2021-22. The current score is below the 79.9 average for 1,998 rated schools serving a similar economic context.The current score is below the 81.5 average for 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant.The current score is below the 80.8 average for 15 rated schools in Hopkins County.The current score is below the 80.3 average for 4,744 similarly sized rated schools.The current score is below the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools.
Evidence worth noticing
Strengths and momentum
Current strength
Chronically absent lower than the similar-context average
12.5% −4.3 pts vs 16.8%
- 12.5% is 4.3 percentage points lower than the 16.8% average among 1,934 schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate reporting this measure.
STAAR result
Math above Region 08: Mt Pleasant averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 49%vs 43.6% avg · +5.4 pts
- Masters
- 26%vs 15.9% avg · +10.1 pts
Among 128 schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
See the full measureCurrent strength
Chronically absent lower than the Region 08: Mt Pleasant average
12.5% −3.1 pts vs 15.6%
- 12.5% is 3.1 percentage points lower than the 15.6% average among 134 schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant reporting this measure.
Top placement
Math — Masters
26% 3rd of 13 schools in Hopkins County reporting this measure · 2025-26
See the full measureTop placement
Chronically absent
12.5% 3rd-lowest of 14 schools in Hopkins County reporting this measure · 2025-26
See the full measureSTAAR result
Math above similar-size averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 49%vs 47.3% avg · +1.7 pts
- Masters
- 26%vs 21% avg · +5 pts
Among 4,549 similarly sized schools reporting this measure.
See the full measureCurrent strength
Chronically absent lower than the similar-size average
12.5% −2.9 pts vs 15.4%
- 12.5% is 2.9 percentage points lower than the 15.4% average among 4,626 similarly sized schools reporting this measure.
STAAR result
Math above Texas averages at Meets and Masters
- Meets
- 49%vs 46.3% avg · +2.7 pts
- Masters
- 26%vs 19.7% avg · +6.3 pts
Among 7,227 Texas schools reporting this measure.
See the full measureCurrent strength
Chronically absent lower than the Texas average
12.5% −4.2 pts vs 16.7%
- 12.5% is 4.2 percentage points lower than the 16.7% average among 7,358 Texas schools reporting this measure.
Selected positive signals, not a summary of performance. The same rules choose them on every page: only the latest one-year gain, results meaningfully better than the currently selected comparison with broad reporting, and distinctive top-three placements. Demographics, staffing and spending cannot become academic “wins.” The overall rating and the full results below remain the complete picture for this school.
Read the full rating context and placement
Sulphur Springs Elem is rated C by TEA, scoring 74 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 79.9 average for 1,998 rated schools serving a similar economic context. It is down 15 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 1,434th of 1,998 rated schools serving a similar economic context (tied with 65 others).
Sulphur Springs Elem is rated C by TEA, scoring 74 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.5 average for 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant. It is down 15 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 114th of 142 rated schools in Region 08: Mt Pleasant (tied with 6 others).
Sulphur Springs Elem is rated C by TEA, scoring 74 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80.8 average for 15 rated schools in Hopkins County. It is down 15 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 13th of 15 rated schools in Hopkins County.
Sulphur Springs Elem is rated C by TEA, scoring 74 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 80.3 average for 4,744 similarly sized rated schools. It is down 15 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 3,429th of 4,744 similarly sized rated schools (tied with 149 others).
Sulphur Springs Elem is rated C by TEA, scoring 74 out of 100 for 2025-26 — below the 81.3 average for 7,646 rated Texas schools. It is down 15 points since 2021-22.
Ranks 5,844th of 7,646 rated Texas schools (tied with 207 others).
Put the numbers in context
Compare with
Jump to a section
5 years of ratings
Follow the solid line to see how this school has changed. Turn comparison lines on or off to add context.
Compare against
2021-22 is shown under the refreshed methodology TEA adopted in 2023, so it is comparable with later years. Under the original scoring it was rated B with 89 that year.
Comparison lines follow the current rated cohort backward through time. The table gives the number in that fixed cohort that reported a score each year; it can be smaller than cohort membership.
View the yearly scores and comparisons
| Year | Rating | Score | Selected comparisonSimilar economic-disadvantage rate | StateTexas average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | C | 74 | 79.9 1,998 reporting | 81.3 7,646 reporting |
| 2024-25 | B | 81 | 79.6 1,975 reporting | 81.2 7,554 reporting |
| 2023-24 | C | 70 | 77.7 1,959 reporting | 78.9 7,466 reporting |
| 2022-23 | B | 81 | 78.3 1,926 reporting | 79.1 7,377 reporting |
| 2021-22 | B | 89 | 82.2 1,904 reporting | 83.7 7,283 reporting |
Where the score comes from
Texas builds the overall rating from the better of Student Achievement and School Progress, weighted 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. School Progress is itself the better of Academic Growth and Relative Performance. The 60, 70, 80 and 90 rules mark the letter-grade thresholds.
- Sulphur Springs Elem
- Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,998 in cohort)
| Domain | Score | Grade | Points to next grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Student Achievement | 74 | C | 6 |
| School Progress | 77 | C | 3 |
| Closing the Gaps | 67 | D | 3 |
| Academic Growth | 66 | D | 4 |
| Relative Performance | 77 | C | 3 |
Closest to moving up: School Progress, 3 points below B in that domain — the nearest of the measures that count toward the overall rating.
TEA does not add the domains up. The overall score is the better of Student Achievement and School Progress at 70%, plus Closing the Gaps at 30%. For this school that better measure is School Progress (77), so Student Achievement (74) is published above but does not enter the overall score at all — gaining points there changes nothing until it passes 77.
Student outcomes
STAAR performance
- Approaches grade level
- Meets grade level
- Masters grade level
- Tick: Similar economic-disadvantage rate (1,998 in cohort)
Percentage of tests at or above each level. Masters is a subset of Meets, which is a subset of Approaches. The selected-comparison tick on each bar marks the average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate — a comparison TEA does not publish.
Counts in the comparison controls describe full cohort membership, not the denominator of every average. Each average uses only schools for which TEA reported that measure; metric-specific reporting counts are shown on the STAAR, graduation and CCMR rows and may vary.
Who this school serves
Placed after the results deliberately: this is context for reading them, not an explanation of them.
- Students
- 562
- Economically disadvantaged
- 64.9%−0.1 pts vs similar economic context
- English learners
- 19.4%+1.5 pts vs similar economic context
- Special education
- 29.0%+10.1 pts vs similar economic context
- Attendance
- 94.6%+0.5 pts vs similar economic context
- Chronically absent
- 12.5%−4.3 pts vs similar economic context
Student demographics
Sulphur Springs Elem
- African American 9.3%
- Hispanic 34%
- White 50%
- American Indian 0.4%
- Asian 0.7%
- Pacific Islander 0.4%
- Two or More Races 5.3%
Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,998 reporting for every category shown · 1,998 in full cohort
- African American 11.4%
- Hispanic 51.8%
- White 30.5%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 2.2%
- Pacific Islander 0.2%
- Two or More Races 3.7%
Selected comparison average For Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 142 reporting for every category shown · 142 in full cohort
- African American 16.3%
- Hispanic 21.3%
- White 54.6%
- American Indian 0.5%
- Asian 0.7%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 6.5%
Selected comparison average For Hopkins County · 15 reporting for every category shown · 15 in full cohort
- African American 5.2%
- Hispanic 26.8%
- White 61.7%
- American Indian 0.5%
- Asian 0.5%
- Pacific Islander 0.3%
- Two or More Races 5.1%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized schools · 4,744 reporting for every category shown · 4,744 in full cohort
- African American 12.1%
- Hispanic 54.7%
- White 24.6%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 4.6%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 3.5%
Statewide average 7,646 reporting for every category shown · 7,646 Texas schools in full cohort
- African American 11.5%
- Hispanic 52.6%
- White 27.8%
- American Indian 0.3%
- Asian 4.2%
- Pacific Islander 0.1%
- Two or More Races 3.4%
Student counts behind the percentages
Context only. These counts are not rankings, comparisons, or judgments about school quality.
- Students in this TEA accountability summary
- 562
- Economically disadvantaged students
- 365
- Emergent bilingual students
- 109
- Special education students
- 163
Campus mobility · 2024–25
- Mobile students
- 55
- Students in TEA mobility denominator
- 625
- TEA-published mobility rate
- 8.8%
The mobility count and rate use TEA’s separate 2024–25 campus denominator shown above, not current enrollment. This site does not recalculate a missing rate.
The first figure is TEA’s student count for this accountability summary. It is a separate publication from the fall PEIMS enrollment shown above and can differ; this site does not substitute one for the other. Counts come from TEA’s 2025-26 accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026. A reported zero is shown as 0. Small-number and complementary masks, unavailable values, and blank not-reported fields stay separate and are never estimated. TEA masking definitions.
Enrollment over time
TEA-reported student enrollment for each available school year. Enrollment growth or decline is not a measure of school quality.
TEA reported 562 students in 2025–26, a decrease of 36 (6.0%) from 2024–25.
- Latest enrollment
- 562
2025–26
- Change from 2024–25
- −36
Decrease · −6.0%
- Change since 2021–22
- −59
Decrease · −9.5%
Enrollment in 2025–26
- This school
- 562
- Selected comparison
- 624.4
| School year | Students enrolledSulphur Springs Elem | Change from previous school year | Average enrollmentselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021–22 | 621 | First available year | 641.5 |
| 2022–23 | 639 | Increase of 18 (2.9%) | 647.7 |
| 2023–24 | 639 | No change | 643.8 |
| 2024–25 | 598 | Decrease of 41 (6.4%) | 639 |
| 2025–26 | 562 | Decrease of 36 (6.0%) | 624.4 |
The selected comparison column is the average enrollment among reporting schools in that group. It changes with the comparison control; this school's own counts do not.
Source: TEA PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. TEA reports these counts from its fall student snapshot; changes compare adjacent reported school years.
These counts show how enrollment changed, not why. Attendance-zone changes, school openings or closures, grade reconfigurations, transfers and population shifts can affect the total.
Discipline and removal from class
TEA’s annual student and action counts, kept separate and divided only by the matching full-year enrollment. These figures describe removals from instruction, not a simple safe-or-unsafe score.
- Students in TEA’s all-discipline count
- 13
2.1% of cumulative year-end enrollment
- Disciplinary actions
- 18
2.88 per 100 students
- Cumulative year-end enrollment
- 625
2024–25
Share of students · 2024–25
- This school
- 2.1%
- Selected comparison
- 12.9%
Actions per 100 students · 2024–25
- This school
- 2.88
- Selected comparison
- 30.4
| School year | Cumulative enrollment | Studentsall discipline | Students% of enrollment | Actionsall discipline | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020–21 | 663 | 37 | 5.6% | 63 | 9.50 | 9.8% | 19.5 |
| 2021–22 | 650 | 39 | 6.0% | 69 | 10.62 | 12.9% | 30.3 |
| 2022–23 | 676 | 67 | 9.9% | 129 | 19.08 | 13.4% | 32.3 |
| 2023–24 | 667 | 31 | 4.7% | 55 | 8.25 | 13.2% | 31.9 |
| 2024–25 | 625 | 13 | 2.1% | 18 | 2.88 | 12.9% | 30.4 |
See 2024–25 discipline categories
| Category | Students | Students% of enrollment | Actions | Actionsper 100 students | Studentsselected comparison average % | Actionsselected comparison average per 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All discipline | 13 | 2.1% | 18 | 2.88 | 12.9% | 30.4 |
| In-school suspensions | 11 | 1.8% | 15 | 2.40 | 11.6% | 23.2 |
| Out-of-school suspensions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| DAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| Mandatory DAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary DAEP placements | Suppressed | — | Suppressed | — | — | — |
| JJAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Mandatory JJAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary JJAEP placements | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Expulsions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Mandatory expulsions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
| Discretionary expulsions | Not reported | — | Not reported | — | — | — |
Selected comparisons use rates, not raw counts, so differently sized schools can be read on the same basis. Each average uses only group members for which TEA reported that rate; this school's own counts and rates remain fixed.
Students, actions and incidents are different units. One student can receive multiple actions. The categories overlap, so they must not be added together. Rates use TEA's matching cumulative year-end enrollment, not the October enrollment shown elsewhere on this page.
Source: TEA Discipline Reports, fetched 24 August 2026. Suppressed values stay unavailable rather than being estimated. Use 2020–21 cautiously because remote instruction during the pandemic changed students' exposure to in-person discipline. TEA consolidated its separate action-group reports into this product in 2024–25; this trend uses only the stable “All discipline” heading.
Spending per student
The campus and its parent district stay fixed while the selected same-sector txschools.net comparison changes with the page-wide control. TEA's own peer group and statewide reference remain visible as separately published, fixed TEA references.
- Sulphur Springs Elem
- Parent district: Sulphur Springs ISD
- Texas average
- Selected comparison: Similar economic-disadvantage rate
Spending per student · 2025
- This school
- $31,740
- Selected comparison
- $12,669
For 2025, TEA reported $31,740 per student for this campus, $21,394 per student for its parent district, Sulphur Springs ISD, $18,972 per student for the Texas average.
Not reported in this TEA campus finance record: TEA peer group.
View yearly spending figures
| Year | Sulphur Springs Elem | Parent district: Sulphur Springs ISD | Texas average | Selected comparison average | Reportingselected comparison |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $6,237 | $11,397 | $13,054 | $7,925 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,835 rated schools reporting |
| 2019 | $7,199 | $11,226 | $13,108 | $8,091 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,850 rated schools reporting |
| 2020 | $8,151 | $11,398 | $14,058 | $8,670 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,871 rated schools reporting |
| 2021 | $8,534 | $12,450 | $14,797 | $9,099 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,884 rated schools reporting |
| 2022 | $8,225 | $13,163 | $15,708 | $10,464 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,904 rated schools reporting |
| 2023 | $8,007 | $13,135 | $16,792 | $11,175 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,927 rated schools reporting |
| 2024 | $8,212 | $14,094 | $18,125 | $12,069 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,956 rated schools reporting |
| 2025 | $31,740 | $21,394 | $18,972 | $12,669 | average for schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,972 rated schools reporting |
The selected-comparison reporting count is year-specific and can vary across the table. Dollar amounts are shown as TEA published them and are not adjusted for inflation.
Teachers and actual class size
- Average salary
- $62,849−$3,559 vs similar economic context
- Teachers
- 45+2.4 vs similar economic context
- Students per staff member
- 12.5−1.4 vs similar economic context
Teaching experience
Sulphur Springs Elem
- 1 to 5 years 37.8%
- 6 to 10 years 11.1%
- 11 to 20 years 35.6%
- 21 to 30 years 8.9%
- Over 30 years 6.7%
Selected comparison average For schools with a similar economic-disadvantage rate · 1,998 reporting for every category shown · 1,998 in full cohort
- Beginning 6.3%
- 1 to 5 years 26.3%
- 6 to 10 years 19.1%
- 11 to 20 years 27.9%
- 21 to 30 years 15.8%
- Over 30 years 4.1%
Selected comparison average For Region 08: Mt Pleasant · 142 reporting for every category shown · 142 in full cohort
- Beginning 5.6%
- 1 to 5 years 24.2%
- 6 to 10 years 18.4%
- 11 to 20 years 27.3%
- 21 to 30 years 17.2%
- Over 30 years 6.5%
Selected comparison average For Hopkins County · 15 reporting for every category shown · 15 in full cohort
- Beginning 3.5%
- 1 to 5 years 25.9%
- 6 to 10 years 18.6%
- 11 to 20 years 28.6%
- 21 to 30 years 17.7%
- Over 30 years 5.9%
Selected comparison average For similarly sized schools · 4,744 reporting for every category shown · 4,744 in full cohort
- Beginning 6.1%
- 1 to 5 years 26.4%
- 6 to 10 years 19.7%
- 11 to 20 years 29%
- 21 to 30 years 15.6%
- Over 30 years 3.1%
Statewide average 7,646 reporting for every category shown · 7,646 Texas schools in full cohort
- Beginning 6.2%
- 1 to 5 years 25.6%
- 6 to 10 years 19.2%
- 11 to 20 years 28.7%
- 21 to 30 years 15.9%
- Over 30 years 3.7%
Average students in a class
| Grade or subject | Average students per classSulphur Springs Elem · 2024–25 | Average students per classselected comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Grade 4 | 18.2 | 19 |
| Grade 5 | 18.7 | 19.9 |
These are TEA's actual class-size averages for the grade or subject shown, not the student-to-teacher ratio. TEA reported 2 of 12 categories for this campus; the categories are not combined into a made-up campus-wide average. Each selected comparison average uses only schools reporting that same grade or subject.
Source: TEA Texas Academic Performance Reports, fetched 24 August 2026.
Where this school ranks best
Out of 105 rankings computed across every published metric and every available comparison group, these are all the measures that meet this site’s distinctive-placement threshold. The list does not change when you change Compare against. Each measure appears once, using its strongest placement. Press Copy for a citable sentence.
#2–3 rankings
Second- and third-place results
3 measures
-
2of 15
Per-student spending
Hopkins County · of the 15 that report this measure
-
3of 14
Chronically absent (lowest is best)
Hopkins County · of the 14 that report this measure
-
3of 13
Math — Masters
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
#4–10 rankings
Fourth- through tenth-place results
14 measures
-
4of 13
Math — Meets
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
5of 13
All Subjects — Masters
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
5of 13
Reading — Masters
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
6of 14
Attendance
Hopkins County · of the 14 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
7of 11
Science — Masters
Hopkins County · of the 11 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
8of 13
All Subjects — Meets
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
9of 13
Relative Performance
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
9of 13
All Subjects — Approaches
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
9of 13
Reading — Approaches
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
9of 13
Math — Approaches
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
9of 11
Academic Growth
Hopkins County · of the 11 that report this measure
-
9of 11
Science — Meets
Hopkins County · of the 11 that report this measure · tied with 1
-
10of 13
Reading — Meets
Hopkins County · of the 13 that report this measure
-
10of 11
Science — Approaches
Hopkins County · of the 11 that report this measure
These are selected high placements, not a summary. Every figure above this section is the full picture, including where this school ranks poorly. Each measure appears once here, using its strongest qualifying placement across all available comparison groups. Very large ties are left out because they do not distinguish this school; any tie that does appear is labeled. Every ranking this site publishes, including the ones no school would put in a press release.
Where this comes from
The Texas Education Agency publishes the underlying accountability reports and data downloads. Ratings, outcomes, demographics, staffing and finance on this page come from TEA data available through txschools.gov, fetched 15 August 2026. TEA’s Reports and Data Portal links the official bulk files. Enrollment history comes from TEA's PEIMS Student Program and Special Populations reports, fetched 24 August 2026. The student-count context comes from TEA’s bulk accountability summary, fetched 29 August 2026; TEA’s masking definitions explain withheld values. The dated notice, staffing, discipline, transfer, community and postsecondary sections cite their separate TEA, Census or THECB publication in place. Every archived source carries checksums so each number stays traceable to the bytes the public agency served.
Download the full dataset · this campus's district
Single-file records are pre-built for district-level records only, so there is no per-campus CSV to
link here. Producing both formats for every entity would consume most of the 20,000-asset deployment limit before
pages and shared data are counted. This campus is a row
in the bulk files on the download page, keyed by its TEA id 112901108.